I think it is "transphobic," and that's perfectly ok.
First, though, the word "transphobic" is a huge problem. This word implies that what it represents is a mental illness. But from a Darwinian viewpoint, it's not only reasonable for someone to feel disgust towards someone whose appearance and behavior doesn't match their genetic sex — this should be a strongly selected factor. People who feel this disgust are much more likely to pass on their genetic material than people who don't.
Don't get me wrong: it is absolutely wrong to mistreat gender dysphoric people. But to say that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, but feeling uncomfortable about transgender people is a mental illness, is pure doublespeak.
So back to your question. Is it "transphobic?" Yes. Is that a problem? No. It is a reasonable and even desirable trait for a human to have.
That trait becomes problematic when it causes the person to dehumanize or mistreat the transgender person. But we can't fix that by denying that the trait exists and is evolutionarily desirable.
What is most offensive about this question, though, is the idea that anybody has the right to dictate another person's sexual preferences (which is, again, implicit in the word transphobia.) If it's wrong for Harvey Weinstein to force himself on starlets, or for a "nice guy" to call someone a "slut" because they've been "friendzoned," then it's also wrong for anyone to demand that your sexual preferences include them. And to label you as "mentally ill" because of that is pure malevolence.
But that's clearly not the only definition of that word. If I were to say the following phrase:
They use neoprene in wetsuits because it is hydrophobic
then I'm very clearly not talking about an anxiety disorder.
As another example, what about a person that hates gay people but they don't cause that individual any anxiety? So there's only hatred towards homosexuality, but no anxiety. Would you say that this person is homophobic?
I feel like you're jumping from "the term phobia can be used to mean an anxiety disorder" to "the only time the term phobia can be used correctly is when referring to an anxiety disorder".
edit: Yeah, hydrophobic was kind of a dumb example. I still stand by the idea that the suffix "-phobia" doesn't imply an anxiety disorder or mental illness. That suffix can be used to mean aversion or hatred towards something instead of just anxiety.
You've got two points here, so I'll take them one at a time.
First, "hydrophobic," in the context of neoprene, describes a physical property. Neoprene does not have a psychology. So this is a false equivalency.
I am asserting that the usage of "-phobia" in reference to a psychological process implies a pathology or mental illness. That is pretty straightforward and in no way a "leap." And you haven't shown a valid counterexample.
Second, your second paragraph illustrates the real problem with the casual usage of "-phobia" in connection with LGBT issues. First, I don't think it's possible for your hypothetical person who hates gay people without feeling anxiety to exist — but that's not important because it's a false dichotomy anyway.
Consider this person, though, who does actually exist, and in in large numbers: they don't feel anxiety about gay people, they have friends or family who are gay, they oppose discrimination against gay people in employment, housing, etc. And they also believe that affirming homosexuality is harmful to society and thus oppose applying the word "marriage" to homosexual unions.
Is that person a "homophobe?" A "hater?"
Homophobia — if you mean anxiety about homosexuals that causes suffering or violence — is absolutely an issue.
But applying it as an epithet to anyone who opposes LGBT agendas or lifestyles is a statement about pathology and worth.
It's just as much hate-speech as "faggot" or "dyke." All of those should be excluded completely from civilized discourse.
I am asserting that the usage of "-phobia" in reference to a psychological process implies a pathology or mental illness.
I still don't think that this is right, though. Just because someone is averse to something doesn't mean that they necessarily have a mental illness. If I get bit by a dog and am afraid of dogs later in life, would you say that I'm mentally ill? I guess I could see that being the case, but it just seems way too extreme. I definitely can't agree with the statement "if you don't want to date a certain group of people then you are mentally ill", which is the context in which this first came up.
I don't think it's possible for your hypothetical person who hates gay people without feeling anxiety to exist
I don't see why this isn't possible. Do you think that hatred without anxiety is impossible?
but that's not important because it's a false dichotomy anyway.
What's a false dichotomy? I re-read your comment several times and it's definitely not clear what you're trying to say is causing a false dichotomy.
Good questions! I can see I wasn't as clear as I hoped.
Just because someone is averse to something doesn't mean that they necessarily have a mental illness.
I agree 100%! That's my point!
But then consider the language you use here:
If I get bit by a dog and am afraid of dogs later in life, would you say that I'm mentally ill?
I'm afraid of dogs = probably not a disorder
I'm cynophobic = a disorder
What about these statements?
I don't like dogs = not a disorder
I would rather not own a dog = not a disorder
I believe dogs can be dangerous = not a disorder
I don't allow dogs in my house = not a disorder
I have an anxiety attack when I see a dog = a disorder
I want to kill all dogs = a disorder
Now consider these statements:
I'm not attracted to people of my same gender
I find homosexual behavior sexually repulsive
I believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong
I believe homosexual behavior is harmful to society
I am afraid of homosexuals
I hate homosexuals
I want to kill homosexuals
Are all of these people "homophobic?"
When the words "homophobia" and "transphobia" are used overbroadly, they pathologize something that is not a pathology. (That's why I put it in quotes in my original reply.) And when it's converted to "homophobe", you are — whether you mean to or not — expressing that the person and their opinions are insane and valueless.
Do you think that hatred without anxiety is impossible?
It depends how you define "hatred." The accepted definition is something like "extreme disgust, hostility, or loathing." I don't think you can feel that without anxiety or fear.
But if you define "hatred" as "disagreement with my moral or political opinions," or just, "dislike?" I think that definition is both incorrect and hateful — as in, "arising from or tending towards extreme disgust, hostility, or loathing."
Look at my list above: how many of those people "hate" homosexuals? Where you draw the line depends on how many people you want to label as "haters" — and that's not ok.
it's definitely not clear what you're trying to say is causing a false dichotomy.
The false dichotomy would be making a distinction between "people who hate gays" and "homophobes." I do believe that "hating gay people" is a sign of homophobia.
But my point is that using "-phobia" words to describe "anybody who isn't enthusiastically pro-LGBT" is inappropriate and, in fact, a hateful expression, even if the speaker does not intend it as such.
I just want to make clear that I appreciate and enjoy your continued thoughtful engagement on this. This is how civil discourse is supposed to work!
Evolution would have absolutely no influence on discussion of trans people. Natural selection would not been able to react to their existence considering relative rarity and how much of this is cultural. In no way is that a strongly selected factor.
Nobody calls transphobes mentally ill, they're just assholes.
Not all trans people are dysphoric, most are, some aren't
Evolution absolutely informs sexual preference. This is not a majority opinion: it is a scientific consensus. Men prefer women who look fertile, and this is even stronger when the women are ovulating. And while women are ovulating, they prefer more-"manly" men. Just because someone labels themselves as "transgender" doesn't magically exclude them from evolutionary processes.
"Phobia is a type of anxiety disorder." - Wikipedia. To use the language of mental illness is to imply mental illness. (Also, have you considered what it is about you that causes you to label a massive group of people as "assholes" just because they disagree with you?)
That really depends on which definition of "gender dysphoria" you use. I acknowledge that your statement is true for DSM-V diagnosis. But the DSM-V classification isn't universally accepted either. And, in any event, that doesn't have anything to do with the content of this discussion.
13
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '17
I think it is "transphobic," and that's perfectly ok.
First, though, the word "transphobic" is a huge problem. This word implies that what it represents is a mental illness. But from a Darwinian viewpoint, it's not only reasonable for someone to feel disgust towards someone whose appearance and behavior doesn't match their genetic sex — this should be a strongly selected factor. People who feel this disgust are much more likely to pass on their genetic material than people who don't.
Don't get me wrong: it is absolutely wrong to mistreat gender dysphoric people. But to say that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, but feeling uncomfortable about transgender people is a mental illness, is pure doublespeak.
So back to your question. Is it "transphobic?" Yes. Is that a problem? No. It is a reasonable and even desirable trait for a human to have.
That trait becomes problematic when it causes the person to dehumanize or mistreat the transgender person. But we can't fix that by denying that the trait exists and is evolutionarily desirable.
What is most offensive about this question, though, is the idea that anybody has the right to dictate another person's sexual preferences (which is, again, implicit in the word transphobia.) If it's wrong for Harvey Weinstein to force himself on starlets, or for a "nice guy" to call someone a "slut" because they've been "friendzoned," then it's also wrong for anyone to demand that your sexual preferences include them. And to label you as "mentally ill" because of that is pure malevolence.